To think that families who construct their lifestyle around two incomes are living very precariously?

[Circumlocutious]

I’m talking situations where the two incomes are absolutely essential to paying the mortgage and bills. A situation where there is no ‘give’, no flexibility: what if there is a chronic illness in the family, one person can no longer work, school closures (well, you’re seeing it now)? Isn’t this a precarious way to live?

I get that sometimes there may be no other choice, especially when saving up for mortgage. But often it seems like people’s lifestyle - the house they choose to buy, the size of their mortgage, the area they live in, their cars, the schools they pay to send their children to - have adapted to fit around two full incomes, even when they could have made different choices. Many people live fancy lifestyles with no room for error. They can’t scale back their spending without making major changes, eg moving house, which are harder to do once you’re used to your current lifestyle.

AIBU to say that more couples should aim to contain family spending to the level of one earning partner? Is this unrealistic?

*not completely vulnerable!

@CakeRequired

How are people not getting this thread?

It's not about those who have no choice in the matter, or single parents, or who have been cheated on.

It's about idiots who move into a massive, fancy house, like 5/6 bedrooms with 3 people, buy big expensive cars, buy all the latest expebsive gadgets even when they haven't broken, they just upgrade as a new one is out, buy expensive furniture, go on expensive holidays, and they literally never save any money. They are spending it all quicker than it comes in. They don't need that lifestyle, they want it. Keeping up with the joneses essentially. They have no safety net despite being rich. It's their choice obviously, but it's highly risky as op said. If they lose an income, they are screwed. Big mortgage, big payments for cars and holidays and tech, how can they cope? They can't, they lose their home etc. This happens to people, I've seen it happen. As I say it usually happens to people in the oil industry, they don't plan a future as they think they are safe despite it collapsing several times. Hopefully they've learnt by now but I'm doubtful.

What your describing though would end up with a huge amount of equity and collateral, they'd be fine theyd just have to sell things instead of having the money liquid.

Thats assuming they've never taken up the fairly lucrative share schemes etc at these companies/don't have a portfolio (gotta keep up with the jonses on the isa contributions too)

I accept that for some families there’s no other way (especially for tenants they went to get onto the property ladder in the first place?). And for certain types of household, eg lone income. But maybe I should have tightened my argument - I don’t think this is confined to low income families, but refers mainly to those earning above-average salaries with outwardly comfortable middle class lifestyles. Wages and jobs that would be considered very very good indeed, but still highly vulnerable to a change in circumstances. Cheap credit as partly responsible?

I can accept that I’m in a bubble, but I’m seeing this around me more and more, and it’s not just about living on the breadline.

I suspect this article would elaborate on the issue:

www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/britains-middle-class-became-debt-generation/

@Backbee we will have to agree to disagree.

It wasn’t “luck” the boring job I got a young age (dragging a pallette on a pick line up and down a chiller warehouse) was not luck it was pure hard work and determination. These jobs were available to all my peers in the local area who chose not to do them out of idleness. Until they expanded the EU and we had an influx of polish workers, they were constantly crying out for staff.

So no it wasn’t luck, it was graft on my part.

We would still be living as a family with my now grown up dd in a one bedroom flat if we did this as this costs £300k in my area.

Everyone makes their different choices and has a different attitude to risk.

YABU, and judgemental.

And I say that as someone who comes from a family in which we (very luckily) could just live on DH’s salary if we needed to.

It’s not just about people living flash lifestyles with huge houses and two/three cars. It can just be the area you live in.

DH and I rent- if we ever want a mortgage on anything bigger than a 1 bed flat we need us both to work to get the salary multiples for a mortgage. We also pay DS’s nursery bill, so aren’t left with huge sums leftover to save.

Our jobs are heavily London dependent- we couldn’t just up and move to a cheaper area. Even if we could, we’d lose all our friends/support network. Mad to do that with a young child.

I loathe posts like this - all sweeping generalisations and stereotypes about people. Your OP just betrays you’re ignorance, I’m afraid.

The ideal is to contain spending to just one salary, yes (and have a second salary to save / fall back on) but in the real world this isn't possible for most people. I agree with pp that the housing market is now set up for 2 earners (as most people don't earn enough on their own to get the size of mortgage needed) but I expect that most people do take into account mortgage payments and other living costs when making choices. But often the choice is between using both salaries to achieve the desired (or decent) living standard or to go without.

We are in a position where we can and do live within one salary means, as we want a comfortable lifestyle/retirement/be able to cope financially without worrying what life throws at us.

We have our remaining mortgage amount invested in savings so if anything happened, we could pay that off. We also have basic life insurance policies and are working with a financial advisor to make sure if anything happened to either of us, we would be able to support the same lifestyle.

Childcare will become a factor in a year or so, but we are putting money to one side now. Similarly, I am on maternity leave, but have saved 8k specifically for it which I am unlikely to spend of, so that will become the childcare fund.

[quote Circumlocutious]I accept that for some families there’s no other way (especially for tenants they went to get onto the property ladder in the first place?). And for certain types of household, eg lone income. But maybe I should have tightened my argument - I don’t think this is confined to low income families, but refers mainly to those earning above-average salaries with outwardly comfortable middle class lifestyles. Wages and jobs that would be considered very very good indeed, but still highly vulnerable to a change in circumstances. Cheap credit as partly responsible?

I can accept that I’m in a bubble, but I’m seeing this around me more and more, and it’s not just about living on the breadline.

I suspect this article would elaborate on the issue:

www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/britains-middle-class-became-debt-generation/[/quote]
It's not "some families" though. In London and the commuter belt, it is almost impossible to be granted a mortgage off one decent income of 40k (it needs a decade plus of saving while living in a tiny rented apartment and experiencing few luxuries) So you're arguing about something that affects people who are earning well above the average income.

CakeRequired

Exactly and I've seen people lose their homes then because one (usually the husband) was made redundant and even if working full time the other can't cover the mortgage on the huge house they didn't need, cars go back etc....

For some people it's a risk worth taking to live the high life for a few years. I'd rather have greater stability and live leaner.

@VestaTilley

YABU, and judgemental.

And I say that as someone who comes from a family in which we (very luckily) could just live on DH’s salary if we needed to.

It’s not just about people living flash lifestyles with huge houses and two/three cars. It can just be the area you live in.

DH and I rent- if we ever want a mortgage on anything bigger than a 1 bed flat we need us both to work to get the salary multiples for a mortgage. We also pay DS’s nursery bill, so aren’t left with huge sums leftover to save.

Our jobs are heavily London dependent- we couldn’t just up and move to a cheaper area. Even if we could, we’d lose all our friends/support network. Mad to do that with a young child.

I loathe posts like this - all sweeping generalisations and stereotypes about people. Your OP just betrays you’re ignorance, I’m afraid.

But I don’t know why it’s ‘mad’ to have no close family or support network with a young child, as you say, but it’s not ‘mad’ to rent in London with a massive nursery bill and slim prospects of buying a property. I’m not saying it’s not a valid choice, but you seem to suggest that there’s no choice at all in the matter at all.

It's about idiots who move into a massive, fancy house, like 5/6 bedrooms with 3 people, buy big expensive cars, buy all the latest expebsive gadgets even when they haven't broken, they just upgrade as a new one is out, buy expensive furniture, go on expensive holidays, and they literally never save any money.

I don't think there are millions of these idiots, millions don't earn enough to be able to afford to waste money in the first place.

[quote Circumlocutious]I accept that for some families there’s no other way (especially for tenants they went to get onto the property ladder in the first place?). And for certain types of household, eg lone income. But maybe I should have tightened my argument - I don’t think this is confined to low income families, but refers mainly to those earning above-average salaries with outwardly comfortable middle class lifestyles. Wages and jobs that would be considered very very good indeed, but still highly vulnerable to a change in circumstances. Cheap credit as partly responsible?

I can accept that I’m in a bubble, but I’m seeing this around me more and more, and it’s not just about living on the breadline.

I suspect this article would elaborate on the issue:

www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/britains-middle-class-became-debt-generation/[/quote]
What do,you mean when you say especially for tenants they went to get on the property ladder in the first place?

I think there’s an auto correct and I can’t figure out what it is lol.

It seems you are judging others from a very comfortable position yourself?

@PurplePansy05 completely agree.

I woke up this morning and this thread was on my mind. I realised just how precariously most of society is living individually and then how we've structured a very un-resilient society. Everything is stretchded at that level. Housing is mad. I dont know if other countries do it better. I heard of a signapore housing scheme that seemed better. Education is in a state where people bunch around particular schools as an attempt to get an education. Hospitals keel over each winter (covid aside). Public transport is eye wateringly expensive. The job market is subsidised by benefits that combined dont leave enough to live off. Our food supply seems resilient until Macron closed the port but that was sorted quick enough - but then there is a whole food bank thing happening.
Everything is stretched and then people are forced to stretch themselves.
I know this thread was really about people who could live one type of comfortable life and build security but choose to over commit for a luxury life - but i kept thinking how msny people cant build a buffer because at a base level we've got it wrong.

I think for most people there's a trade off somewhere in the middle. We both work, earning roughly the same amount, and we don't max out our outgoings (e.g. our car is 13 years old, we haven't had a non-UK holiday in three years) but nor do we live off half our income, which would mean either living somewhere horrible (and having a lower quality of life due to long commutes) or living in a tiny flat with two children. It seems mad to me to choose to live as if you'd lost one job if that comes with significant downsides in case that happens at some point - if we lose one job and can't replace it I guess we'd have to sell the house, but why would we do that pre-emptively?

The housing market is pretty fecked tbh & for people getting on the ladder today it's far harder for them to build equity & move up the ladder. Hence you have price stagnation & 35 yr mortgages. Plus wages are not really going away & cant see that changing now.

@CakeRequired but that argument doesn’t make sense.

If they buy a bigger house, you’re saying they could “lose it” and have to sell up and move to a smaller home... so why is the solution to move directly into said smaller home on the off chance that something might happen? That makes no sense.

I wouldn't chose to borrow 5x my salary with a 95% mortgage to get on the ladder but that's because I was fortunate to not need too. For others I can understand why they take that option.

It’s just as precious to rely on a partner for an income. If you split up you are left with nothing.

What about individuals who only have one income? What should they do OP? By your logic they should never buy a house or spend money.

As someone who has experienced a split of assets, I will never be financially reliable on another again. If I was ever to cohabit again it would be to my means alone.

We only live on one salary and save my (pathetic) one but I've never thought about anyone else's finances, non of my business so not even curious

We were in this situation until six months ago when DH lost his job and has to take a much lower income. We also could have lived on mine (just about!) but I’d literally just gone down to part time (returned from mat leave). So definitely not in this situation now. Hand has been forced there. We’d be pretty screwed if we took any more hits to our income because our savings took a massive hit for the months he was out of work.

I now have sleepless nights knowing we have very little contingency plan left but I am constantly reminding myself that at least we can afford to live. Worrying about whether or not we might be able to afford to live in the future seems a bit daft to me currently. Too many what ifs. Just got to cross that bridge if and when we come to it.